Larian Studios Forums General Chat Chat (Anything) The Argumentative Git thread

Womble, where have you gone <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/question.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/question.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/question.gif" alt="" /> time's up!!!

erm have a look somewhere near Luskan maybe <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

yep surely lost in his old NWN's saves...
you're right Mea

Hmmm, guess computer games cause more debate... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

Kyra: Loved your poem! You seem a little confused as to the nature of stem-cell research however. Human cloning is not really the major issue there.

UB: Good points. You have a good brain on your shoulders. If you'd gone a bit further you would have won.

MG: Good as always. Stuck to the points I outlined. Made some good new points too. You are the argumentitive git winner! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/party.gif" alt="" />

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got illithids to roast. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

thanks,

new topic is: is political correctness the only way to respect others? (well you may change "the only way" in "a way" if you want to...)

Womble, Womble, Womble

I know cloning isn't the issue here. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />
I was just airing what a lot of people think on the subject.
They are afraid it's the first step to cloning.

As far as I'm concerned...I'm for Stem-Cell research and I'm all for cloning too if it leads to that. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

Kyra_Ny <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/delight.gif" alt="" />

Yeah, amybe, but I was too busy cureing the plauge in Neverwinter WITHOUT useing stem-cell tecnique that I didn't have time <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />.

Übereil (and for now on, It's 11:30 in the evening, so I'll have to try to keep it short. That was my exuse for not entering yet, btw)

is a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron even <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> No HeF I said "OXY" not "OZZIE" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

What exactly is “Political Correctness”?

As far as I can see, it’s simply a term designed to ease the uncomfortable edge of social change. Most people fear change to some degree and laughing at things seems to be a popular way to deal with matters that we're unsure about.

But why should people be so resistant to such changes? Probably for two main reasons:

1) Nobody likes being told what to do or think, particularly by the government, and especially if it suggests that our own thinking could do with improving, and

2) Most people don’t like change, especially if somebody else is driving the pace of it. Mostly we prefer the comfortable ‘old ways’ even if they are a bit tatty and smelly on close inspection.

I was born in the first half of last century, and the Western world was very different then, compared to today. Every social attitude that has changed since then was to some degree laughed at, resisted, and subjected to some form of “Politically Correct” label. Here are a few examples:

Race:

People of other races and colours were routinely referred to by the most deliberately insulting of names. In Australia, the indigenous people were also denied common rights of land ownership, voting, etc. When Australia was settled (or invaded, depending on your perspective) it had been declared legally “Terra Nullius” i.e uninhabited. The very existence of Aborigines as human beings was denied.

Although many of their legal rights have subsequently been restored (some quite recently) the effects of this attitude flow right up to the modern day. And I’m sure that we all know of many similar stories, in South Africa and elsewhere. There has been a strong push in Australia over the past decade to go a little further than just grudgingly and belatedly restoring basic rights to Aborigines. Aboriginal leaders, and many white supporters, have lobbied for an official apology – to just say “Sorry” for the undeniable abuses of the past. The government has flatly refused to endorse such an apology, and the request for an official “Sorry” has been derided in many quarters as being over the top “Political Correctness”.

Being "Politically Correct" about other races seems like basic humanity to me.

Sexuality:

When I was young, same sex relationships were illegal. You could be jailed for being homosexual, as indeed you still can be in many parts of the world.

When the laws were changed there were howls of derision from the "anti-Political Correctness" brigade. A common joke at the time (which most of us cheerfully laughed at) was "I’m going to leave the country before the buggers make it compulsory…"

We have some friends who have been together as a couple for as long as my wife and I have (nearly a quarter of a century). The idea of sneering at them, or legislating against them because they're lesbians seems quite bizarre to me. Am I just being "Politically Correct"?

Children:

When I was grew up, beating children was the prevailing form of punishment and discipline enforcement – both in schools and in the home. Suggesting that this should be stopped was widely seen as madly "Politically Correct". In fact many people still think that way.

I don't think that beating children is a good idea - am I just being "Politically Correct"?

Gender:

When the official push to stop treating women as second class citizens gathered momentum, the same anti-change attitudes were wheeled out. This went into overdrive when governments attempted to bring in language changes. We all chuckled away at cracks about “Personhole covers” for “manhole covers” etc. and angry letters were written about the change from “Chairman” to “chairperson”. But now my wife has a senior position in a government department and is frequently the chairperson of meetings. To us at least, the term has become familiar, has stopped seeming slightly odd, and now seems perfectly reasonable.

We all like to snigger, and reassure ourselves with jokes about “Land Rights for Black Lesbian Whales – Now!!” but sooner or later we get used to the changes. Of course there’s always some local council who tries to bring in something that’s just a bit too over the top for the times (or else someone invents such a regulation and we all gleefully believe that someone has just ruled that 10% of council members must be single parent blind lesbian muslim amputees with a speech impediment. But on the whole the direction does seem to me to be positive.

And if you bunch of poofter, woggy, girly retards disagree with me then I’m just going to have to give you all a damn good flogging with me cat-o-nine-tails. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ohh.gif" alt="" />

To put it another way:

What people usually refer to when they say “Politically Correct” is some piece of legislation or local regulation that seeks to modify people’s attitude, language or behaviour – often towards some perceived disadvantaged or minority group.

But can you change attitudes by making laws?

The short answer would seem to be “No you can’t” (will it really stop bigots disliking people of other races, just because the government says that it’s now illegal?) . However, history appears to prove that the long answer is actually “Yes, legislation can help change attitudes, but it takes time”. So it would seem that it’s part of the ebb and flow of public debate, and that such laws can eventually contribute towards a (slow) change in standards and attitudes. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" />

good post kris...

though, when this entire forum will have turned in a political correct thing you will be the one to explain to a certain (not so Fallen) Angel why she should be bannished for keeping using the word 'female' (an incorrect one as it contains root 'male' <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" />)... I can only imagine the Drow's react!

no one else seemed interested in this topic though <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/puppyeyes.gif" alt="" />...

well not so true: but Mea you will have to get out of your lazy path for winning...

topic is: "is political correctness the only way to respect others"... try to stick to the words...

Another cherished position of the "Anti-Political Correctness" brigade is the notion that governments are trying to force ridiculous language onto us.

Now maybe there was a civil servant somewhere who once referred to the blind as "visually challenged" - or whatever the original term was. But you won't find any such language in regular use in our government documents. Here, we refer to various degrees of visual impairment, which seems reasonable enough.
Yet the jokes run and run - "vertically challenged" for short "follically challenged" for bald "pigmentally challenged" for racially different, etc etc. - and funny jokes they often are too. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

An edict recently passed through the hallowed halls of our Mental Health department to the effect that "Psycho-Geriatric Services" shall now be known as "Older People's Services" - which sounds suspiciously PC. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> But, really, when you're an old fogey starting to go a bit nutty, how reassuring is it to be labelled "Psycho" and "Geriatric" - true though it may be. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/disagree.gif" alt="" />

In the area that I work in - Disability - we seem to change terms every decade or two, the most recent being from 'handicapped' to 'disabled'. Frankly, the changes don't always seem necessary, but the ideas behind the changes seem well meant - usually to drop terms that have become over-used in a negative way. I actually prefer 'handicapped' as to me it suggests someone who is required to carry extra weight, or start behind the rest of the field, but who can still win the race. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> As an Engineer, "disabled" sound to me like something that has been permanently prevented from working. So I still tend to use both terms.

Sure, "Political Correctness" can be overdone at times, but generally (at least here in Australia) it seems relatively benign, and there's more myth than reality in most cases.



Perhaps we're all getting a bit tired of arguing... next time let's try something like SEX and see if that arouses any interest. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

Orka...

Übereil

<git>

Political correctness as a way to respect? Not a hope!

While social legislation, as Kris points out, can gradually affect social behaviour, "political correctness" is a major blight that inhibits clear thinking, and stifles debate, turning it into useless wrangling over the choice of words.

"Political correctness" has made unlikely heros of foul-mouthed, mean-minded comedians, who are greeted with delight by a populace tired of being told what to say and how to say it in order to be considered "good" citizens.

The following was presented over a decade ago, and still applies today:

[color:"orange"]As civilizations decline, they become increasingly concerned with form over substance, particularly with respect to language. At the time of the First World War we called it shell shock--a simple term, two one-syllable words, clear and descriptive. A generation later, after the Second World War had come and gone, we called it combat fatigue. It meant the same thing, and there were still just two words--but the two syllables had grown to four. Today the two words have doubled, and the original pair of syllables have mushroomed to eight. It even has an acronym, PTSD--post traumatic stress disorder. It still means the same thing, and it still hurts as much or as little, but it is more in tune with current effete sensibilities.

It is also a perfect example of the pretentious euphemisms that characterize almost everything we do and say. Euphemisms and the politically correct language which they exemplify are sometimes only prissy, sometimes ridiculous, and sometimes tiresome. Often, however, they are more than that. At their worst they obscure clear thinking and damage the very people and causes they claim to benefit.

Dr. Kenneth Jernigan
Copyright © 1994, 1999 by the National Federation of the Blind[/color]

</git>

Damn, I was going to rant away on this topic but Kris and Rince have made very good points.

I'll just say that PC 'laws' do not make me respect any class, gender or creed any more or any less. Respect should be earned.

For example, I'm not going to show any more respect to troubled nations in Africa just because I can't use the word 'Negro' now, which incedentally is just from the Latin for black. I still think they are a bunch of primitive tribalistic idiots. What I would DO, to highlight the word, as ACTIONS are far more important, if I had the power, would be to make sure none of these idiots were ever sold guns or nuclear bomb material. Developmentally they still have a long way to go. As do we....

I just disagree with the whole thing. Nobody is going to tell me what to say or what not to say. Its freedom of speech, pure and simple.

There's a fundamental difference here, what we say and what we do. I still hear 'politically correct' people referring to mexicans, dominicans and 'African Americans' as 'those people'. They still expect them to be gang members and they still protect their belongings when they walk past one in the street! Totally, totally sad. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

Looking through their eyes, just because it doesn't sound offensive doesn't mean it isn't. A black man for example. Old whitey still expects him to behave a certain way, sit at the back of the bus and fetch his bags. There are many more ways to belittle him than to simply call him 'nigger'.

If changing words is the only social change then thats pathetic. Yet it seems to take priority over actually giving the Cherokee their land back for example.
Of course people scream 'we bought it from them fair and square for 1000 bucks!'
Show some sense of shame, you a$$holes! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/memad.gif" alt="" />

Hmmm, that post was a bit longer than intended... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

Phew - thank goodness for Rincewind and Womble. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> I thought that I had bored everybody clean off the topic... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

I decided to defend what I see as the "silver lining" of the dark cloud of Political Correctness because I assumed that everybody else would automatically attack it. I didn't expect that initially nobody would turn up at all. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" />

Womble said "Respect should be earned" which pretty much nails it, and I've often said the same myself. To take the example that I quoted above about Australian Aborigines, part of the central problem is that many white Australians seem not to respect aboriginal people. We might admit that they've had a raw deal, agree that they should be treated equally in the law, or even feel sorry for them - but the all important ingredient of respect seems largely to be missing still.

Why is this? Well it's probably because we still have very negative stereotypes involving crime, drunkenness, etc. And why do we have these stereotypes? Sadly, perhaps because there is still some truth in them. Our jails are disproportionately (geez that's a clumsy looking word <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> ) stocked with aboriginal people, and drink is still a major problem in aboriginal communities. There are still enough excuses for us to withhold our respect. At least that's what we tell ourselves.

But apparently we do need to be told that it's not OK to look down on Aborigines en masse, and that we need to remember some of the relentless repression that has kept them as an underclass for 200 years. We need to be reminded that a little more leeway and generosity of heart is required from the rest of us who have so much. Unfortunately, to an aboriginal person it can be as irritating to be fawned over by some wishy-washy PC cause-monger than to be looked down on by a racist. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/sad.gif" alt="" />

But in the middle of all this, I would still say that there is a place for government to say "Give the Aborigines some respect you bastards, or we'll cuff you round the ears".

I agree with your points about the way language has become increasingly ridiculous Rincewind, but I think that it’s at best a side alley of Political Correctness. Most of the ridiculous inflation of language that I come across is not due to PC but to the writer trying to impress people and show off erudition (that they often don’t have).

I also notice while that Dr. Jernigan is sticking the boot into everyone else he still uses equally pompous phrases such as "current effete sensibilities" in his own language. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> But of course he understand those words, so they don't jar with him - even though he could have easily used simpler language.

A few years ago I spent about a week re-writing a government manual into plain English – de-bullshittising it. My wife was overseeing the production of the manual, but had received sections from a number of other agencies and departments. Much of it was full of absurdly overblown language, which I translated into something that could be generally understood.

I also read a lot of books and articles about a certain area of intellectual disability, and the language is for the most part unnecessarily flowery. It’s as if the writers are all trying to impress a professor for an exam, or advance their own reputations, rather than "engaging in the dissemination of pertinent and relevant data" (i..e. telling us the facts <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> )

It’s not all bad though. The example of “Shell shock” morphing into “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” seems quite defendable to me. Shell shock was a pretty basic, and specific term. Whereas Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” is a reasonably good description of the condition and has the advantage of applying to a much wider range of situations. Not many troops are just shocked by shells, it actually is a much wider sort of trauma that they often suffer from. And the majority of cases of PTSD occur in civil life as a result of car crashes, being involved with deaths or any number of other traumatic experiences.

I’d be happy to keep Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, if we could weed out "engaging in the dissemination of pertinent and relevant data" and "current effete sensibilities". <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/devil.gif" alt="" />

And while I’m taking a swing at the good Dr. J, let’s try and work out why he bothers to say "current effete sensibilities" at all. What the hell does he mean?

Well, effete means worn out or exhausted. The original meaning was related to being exhausted from giving birth. The meaning gradually widened to take in ‘degenerate’ and ‘without fresh ideas’. Recently it has also begun to acquire the meaning of ‘effeminate’.

And "sensibilities"? He could have said sensitivities or feelings but sensibilities sounds that bit grander. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/devil.gif" alt="" />

So what he’s probably aiming at is something along the lines of accusing those responsible for PTSD of being 'a bunch of bleeding heart limp-wristed types'. Unfortunately, by saying "effete sensibilities" he ensures that some of his readers won’t know what that means at all, and those of us who do know what effete and sensibilities mean will see several possible interpretations of the phrase.

But let’s be clear here! Dr J. is not using the phrase to enlighten us, he’s using it to show off a little – or more accurately to demonstrate to the reader that he’s a person who knows lots of long words and is not a fan of "Shell Shock" just because so simple that he can understand it. No sirree! The doc is not scared of tricky phrases like Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, because – look – he knows what "effete sensibilities" are, or thinks he does. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

A good sub-editor would have deleted the phrase altogether and left it as:

"It still means the same thing, and it still hurts as much or as little."

Dr J is as guilty of waffle as the rest of us.
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ROFL.gif" alt="" />

Speak for yourself mate - we weren't all infected at birth with the Waffle Virus. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

Did you notice that Western Australia recently ‘detuned’ their racial vilification laws with regard to a few terms? I can’t remember the full story, but it was decided that ‘wog’ and ‘ding’ (a term for Italians) could be used in an affectionate manner and weren’t necessarily automatically abusive.

I guess they decided that some of the statutes were just a bit too PC. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ouch.gif" alt="" />

A government minister (Jim McGinty) was quoted as saying that his best mate was a ding and didn’t mind Jim calling him that. It’s all in the way you say it I guess. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

maybe the word political correctness is a bit too much to describe something as simple as tactfulness & perhaps kindness/consideration. PC is a word made by lawmakers & as such, it is a dirty word. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> PC is very unPC to me.

respect earned rather than demanded of is commendable. however for someone who speaks as he/she please without considering consequences is without a doubt a person who needs no respect & thus deserves none.

a person who feels the need to be considerate, or at the very least tactful, will find a way to communicate his/her ideas in more receptive ways which may not be acceptable but at least heard & considered. giving respect is far more labourous than earning it.

to answer the question of the topic, NO. PC is not the only medium to sow & show respect. it does work as what kris mentioned so PC shouldn't be condemned just because. however PC should be fine-tuned & simplified to something more basic & easier to swallow & follow. just say; be considerate & be kind & the utmost; be mindful.

sidenote: PC & terms which are its offshoot, are often used as snide remarks & subtle ways of cendescension. ain't nothing PC about its use, i tell ya!

if a simple word of well-known definition is hard in its adherence, a bookful of phrases will not save more.